When someone admits to being an atheist they destroy any chance to be president

[Radrook]

Yahweh was showing off.

How insightful and profound!

[Radrook]

Here is the real reason why the bomb was dropped.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

[Paulhoff]

Here is the real reason why the bomb was dropped.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm
Of course is it, it is written.

Paul

:) :) :)

[catsmate1]

Here is the real reason why the bomb was dropped.
http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0806-25.htm

Yet more revisionist garbage. Interestingly I cannot find the (alleged) quotes from LeMay and Eisenhower cited by any reputable source (web or paper). Indeed they only appear on the web on revisionist sites, mostly quoting that particular article. Therefore if you're going to rely on them as part of your argument I'd like to see some verification, citation required. The casualty figures your revisionist lists are unreferenced and conflict with those produced done by the JCS, Nimitz's staff and William Shockley, based on actual studies by people who understood the situation.

Common Dreams doesn't impress me with either the quality or neutrality of its articles.

Anyway if you're going to simply link dump without any actual argument of your own try reading these (note they're by actual historians):
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1995/3/1995_3_70_print.shtml
http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson200508050714.asp
http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1995/3/1995_3_70_print.shtml (which deals with the myth that at least several of Truman’s top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral)
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/macarthur%20reports/macarthur%20v1/ch13.htm
I can't find Silkett paper for the USAWC online but I have a copy,

[catsmate1]

How insightful and profound!

Thank you. I pride myself on understanding the motivation of imaginary bronze age deities.

[Ladewig]

As I said, I wasn't using the Book of Enoch as my source. I used the Bible. That Jude cites Enoch in the Bible doesn't mean that I went to the book of Enoch as my source-does it? Furthermore, even without Jude''s quotation the strongest indication is that these sons of God were fallen angels and that the nephilim were human/angelic hybrids. I provided a link for the examination of diverse views. as the article indicates, that's the view considered most compelling.


Here are arguments for different interpretations of the Genesis text both pro and con.
http://www.rationalchristianity.net/nephilim.html

BTW
A book need not be inspired in order to contain historical truth.

I was tempted to argue these points, but seeing as how you are banned, there is no need. I will let them stand unchallenged. You have the last word on the matter, Radrook. Goodbye.

[Mister Agenda]

I might have gotten you mixed up with another poster then. Sorry.

No, it was you and you were clear. My mistake! Again my apologies.

This was very gentlemanly. I wish he could have kept it up longer. I will miss Radrook. He could really keep a thread going.

[devnull]

This was very gentlemanly. I wish he could have kept it up longer. I will miss Radrook. He could really keep a thread going.

I agree. He did a lot of good work for atheism.

[Fiona]

Saucer of milk for devnull ;)

[Psi Baba]

Intriguing column by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette's Tony Norman today:
No need for president to have religion (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/10236/1082117-153.stm)

I hate to tack this onto such a long thread, but no sense in starting an entirely new thread on virtually the same topic.

[Mister Agenda]

Tack away, that was a great article!

[Elind]

No, see, I actually know what the Bible says -- and when I make a claim about what it says, I back up my claim with actual Scripture.
Each of us may claim we know the Bible, but I'm the only one who's actually demonstrated it.

You are aware aren't you that one of the reasons there are so many Christian churches is that they all claim to differ on what they know (understand) about this or that part of the bible?

Why should your particular personal interpretation be taken more seriously than any other?

[Cory Duchesne]

Yes, to my knowledge, there has never been or can be a publicly admitted atheist president. In the land of "In God we Trust" it is just impossible in my opinion. Does it bother atheists to know they can never be president. Or maybe never be a Senator for that matter.

This is what scares me about democracy in general. It's hard to argue against the reality that there is an small minority who have the best (highest) vantage point when viewing reality. A small number of people know best. Yet, it is the majority who know least that rule. This is disconcerting. I can sympathize then with Nietzsche's Noble Aristocracy, Plato's Philosophers Kings, or Kierkegaard's Monarchy.

[Twiler]

This is what scares me about democracy in general. It's hard to argue against the reality that there is an small minority who have the best (highest) vantage point when viewing reality. A small number of people know best. Yet, it is the majority who know least that rule. This is disconcerting. I can sympathize then with Nietzsche's Noble Aristocracy, Plato's Philosophers Kings, or Kierkegaard's Monarchy.

Education is important!

[Tumblehome]

This is what scares me about democracy in general. It's hard to argue against the reality that there is an small minority who have the best (highest) vantage point when viewing reality. A small number of people know best. Yet, it is the majority who know least that rule. This is disconcerting. I can sympathize then with Nietzsche's Noble Aristocracy, Plato's Philosophers Kings, or Kierkegaard's Monarchy.

First, you're responding to DOC's dusty OP as if it's entirely true (http://www.michaelnugent.com/2008/06/02/americas-top-two-elected-atheists/) and meaningful. What the OP really says is that some people feel the need to lie about an inconsequential issue if they want to serve the public (or feed at the public trough, whatever their motivation). And given the general trend, that need to lie about their non-belief will lessen as the years go by.

Second, the majority doesn't rule, no more than we do the housework when we hire someone to do it for us.

Third, being a God believer doesn't mean you're blind to other realities. There are Christians who don't believe in psychics or reincarnation, and atheists who do. And even if we "have the best (highest) vantage point when viewing reality", we we don't automatically have a good knowledge of economics, or foreign affairs, or diplomacy.

Fourth, a group of Noble Aristocracy or Philosopher Kings ruling wisely over us looks good on paper, but in reality, they would still be human and susceptible to human weakness. Wise, intelligent people can still have deep philosophical disagreements on major issues, and childish squabbles over petty issues. And then there's the corruptibility of power in a small elite group deemed the only ones worthy of ruling over us lesser beings.

Barkeep, make mine democracy!:)

[dafydd]

Why should your particular personal interpretation be taken more seriously than any other?

I would ask that question of every christian.

Father Ted: That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what its really all about.

[dafydd]

No, see, I actually know what the Bible says -- and when I make a claim about what it says, I back up my claim with actual Scripture.
Each of us may claim we know the Bible, but I'm the only one who's actually demonstrated it.

I know the bible as well as you do.I take it for what it is though,a collection of old stories.Get down off that high horse.

[Elind]

I would ask that question of every christian.

Father Ted: That's the great thing about Catholicism - it's very vague and no-one knows what its really all about.

The Pope does.

[Elind]

I know the bible as well as you do.I take it for what it is though,a collection of old stories.Get down off that high horse.



For some reason, I don't think you will get a response this, anymore than I will. Troll posts are a dime a dozen.

[Aitch]

This is what scares me about democracy in general. It's hard to argue against the reality that there is an small minority who have the best (highest) vantage point when viewing reality. A small number of people know best. Yet, it is the majority who know least that rule. This is disconcerting. I can sympathize then with Nietzsche's Noble Aristocracy, Plato's Philosophers Kings, or Kierkegaard's Monarchy.

Isn't that why your Founding Fathers* set up the Electoral Colleges system? In case the voters made a mistake?

* or whoever.